But a third and equally important element in the discussion, is the relative draught of the swing and wheel-ploughs.  This element has been lately brought more prominently forward, in consequence of some interesting experiments, made first, we believe, by Mr. Pusey, and since repeated by others, as to the relative draught of different ploughs in the same circumstances, as measured by the dynamometer.  This, as well as the other parts of this question, is taken up, and ably discussed, by Mr. Slight; and he has, we think, satisfactorily shown, that no wheel-plough (or plough with a foot) can be lighter in draught, merely because it is wheeled—­that, on the contrary, its draught must be in some small degree increased, other things being equal, (vol. i. p. 463.) This, we think, is probable, on other grounds besides those stated by Mr. Slight; yet there appears satisfactory reason for believing, that some of the wheel-ploughs which have been made the subject of experiment, have actually been lighter in draught, when doing the same work, than any of the swing-ploughs that have been opposed to them.  But this does not show that, in principle, the swing-plough is not superior to the wheel-plough—­it only shows that, in construction, it is still capable of great emendations, and that, in this respect, some of the wheel-ploughs have got the start of it.  But the Scotch makers, who first so greatly improved the plough, are capable still of competing with their southern rivals; and from their conjoined exertions, future ploughmen are destined to receive still further aid.

When the ploughs are brought home, and while the winter ploughing is going on, an opportunity presents itself for laying out, and probably, as the weather permits, of cutting a portion of the intended drains.  Upon this important subject, Mr. Stephens treats with more even than his usual skill.  How true is the following passage:—­

“Land, however, though it does not contain such a superabundance of water as to obstruct arable culture, may nevertheless, by its inherent wetness, prevent or retard the luxuriant growth of useful plants, as much as decidedly wet land.  The truth is, that deficiency of crops on apparently dry land is frequently attributed to unskilful husbandry, when it really arises from the baleful influence of concealed stagnant water; and the want of skill is shown, not so much in the management of the arable culture of the land, as in neglecting to remove the true cause of the deficiency of the crop, namely, the concealed stagnant water.  Indeed, my opinion is, and its conviction has been forced upon me by long and extensive observation of the state of the soil over a large part of the country—­that this is the true cause of most of the bad farming to be seen, and that not one farm is to be found throughout the kingdom that would not be much the better for draining.”  —­Vol. i. p. 483.